1. Session III: Case Studies of GIs
Geographical Indications for Food Symposium: Exploring Local Origin, Community Development and Intellectual Property Rights
Session III: Case Studies of GIs
Moderated by Jim Smith, AOPA Executive Director
Good afternoon and welcome to a discussion of Geographic Indications Case Studies. 1

2. AOPA Members Established in 2012 as a 501c6 organization to promote, protect & preserve US distinctive product names  
My name is Jim Smith, and I’m the Executive Director of the American Origin Products Association.

3. Real Vermont Maple Syrup has only one ingredient: the sap of Maple trees
Our members grow and make distinctive products. Local agricultural products of high quality which are inextricably tied to the geography where they are created.

4. Real Kona Coffee is only cultivated in 44 square miles on the Hawaiian slopes of Mount Hualalai and Mauna Loa.
Products like Vermont Maply Syrup, Kona Coffee and Idaho potatoes. Since we talked a little bit about Kona coffee earlier today, I wanted to note that farmers are losing out on up to $14.4 million in revenue annually to corporate marketers of 10 percent Kona coffee blends according to an economic analysis. And that the FAO report notes that “protection of the name is not effective, since controls are not carried out for lack of financial resources.”

5. These products command a premium in the marketplace because of their reputation for quality, value and integrity.

6. GIs in the US: Background
GIs (Art of TRIPs Agreement): “indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin”
Successful GIs:
Market differentiation
Price premium
Risks of GIs misappropriations
TRIPs provides fro a minimum of level of GIs protection, but does not require WTO Member States to set-up a specific system
As you may know, becaue the US is a member of the WTO, it is required under TRIPs to establish a mechanism to protect Geographic Indications.

7. GIs in the US: Background
IP tool to protect GIs in the US: trademarks, including certification and collective marks (administered by the USPTO)
Certification mark definition: mark “used by a person other than its owner to certify regional or other origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy, or other characteristics of such person's goods or services or that the work or labor on the goods or services was performed by members of a union or other organization” (15 U.S.C )
Section 2(e)(2) of the Lanham Act exempts certification marks from the usual prohibition against registering primarily geographically descriptive terms
As a result, certification marks are most used vehicle to protect GIs in the US (NOT ALL CERTIFICATION MARKS ARE GIs)
While the US does not have a comprehensive system which recognizes Geopgraphic Indications like the EU and other countries, the US has done this in a piecemeal fashion through the use of trademarks, certification marks and collective marks.

8. Legal uncertainty
There is no formal list of (or criteria for) qualifying GIs in the US
Potential overlap of systems and problems for groups of farmers to understand what is needed
Registration and enforcement of trademarks can be expensive for small groups of farmers
It is problematic for US distinctive product names to obtain recognition & protection as GIs in export markets 
But the US process is not sufficiently protective for small producers 8

9. Enforcement costs Trademark registration: might exceed $10,000
Trademark monitoring and control (including opposition to similar and identical trademark applications): Colombian coffee Federation spent $570,000 in 2007 in oppositions
Trademark enforcement: The Idaho Potato Commission has expended in excess of $1,000,000 in enforcement cases in New York over 12 years
Enforcement costs can be overwhelming for small producers. 9

10. Leaving them at a disadvantage in terms of protecting the value of the investment they make in their geographically distinctive products in markets at home and abroad 10

11. Issues of getting recognition abroad: Napa Valley example in Chile
Refusal of both GI and Certification Mark applications
GI refused for failure to demonstrate sufficient connection between product characteristics and region, expert report required
Certification mark refused because “Napa Valley” was found to be geographically descriptive
Even large and sophisticated producers can find working within this process to be quite arduous. 11

12. GIs in the US: Background
While they do not confer necessarily IPRs, other systems in the US might be looked at to identify national GIs:
American Viticultural Areas (AVAs) for wines, administered by the TTB 
Political appellations for wines
Labelling rules for geographical names for distinctive types of distilled spirits, administered by the TTB  
Marketing orders for fruits, vegetables and crops, administered by the USDA
There are several categories of distinctive products that could benefit from the establishment of a comprehensive US system to protect geographic indications. 12

13. AOPA Policy Agenda
Promote a dialogue and an exchange of best practices among all US stakeholders concerned by distinctive products (owners of geographically distinctive certification marks, products subject to marketing orders, products subject to AVAs, etc.) ​to help American quality agriculture to achieve its potential
Work with US authorities (USPTO, TTB, USDA, USTR, etc.) to:
Create a list of qualified US distinctive product names, which correspond to the GI definition
Ensure adequate legal protections for US distinctive product names
Obtain legal protections for US distinctive product names in US and foreign markets
The goal of the AOPA is to work with US stakeholders to help American agriculture build the American rural economy by creating comprehensive marketplace protections at home and abroad for these products. 13

14. Session III: Case Studies of GIs
Geographical Indications for Food Symposium: Exploring Local Origin, Community Development and Intellectual Property Rights
Session III: Case Studies of GIs
Panelists:
Alberto Hart, Embassy of Peru – Head of the Economic and Environmental Department
Sylvain Maestracci, Embassy of France – Agricultural Counselor
Takuma Nakagawa, Embassy of Japan – Economic Section
So now that you know a little more about the AOPA, I’d like to introduce our panelists to discuss their successful experience with geographic indications:
Alberto Hart, Embassy of Peru
Slyvain Maestracci, Embassy of France
Takuma Nakagawa, Embassy of Japan